Clinical Focus

  • Internal Medicine

Academic Appointments

  • Clinical Assistant Professor, Medicine

Professional Education

  • Board Certification: American Board of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine (2023)
  • Residency: UCLA Medical Center Internal Medicine (2022) CA
  • Medical Education: Johns Hopkins University / Johns Hopkins Hospital (2019) MD

All Publications

  • The association between population health management tools and clinician burnout in the United States VA primary care patient-centered medical home. BMC primary care Wang, J., Leung, L., Jackson, N., McClean, M., Rose, D., Lee, M. L., Stockdale, S. E. 2024; 25 (1): 164


    Technological burden and medical complexity are significant drivers of clinician burnout. Electronic health record(EHR)-based population health management tools can be used to identify high-risk patient populations and implement prophylactic health practices. Their impact on clinician burnout, however, is not well understood. Our objective was to assess the relationship between ratings of EHR-based population health management tools and clinician burnout.We conducted cross-sectional analyses of 2018 national Veterans Health Administration(VA) primary care personnel survey, administered as an online survey to all VA primary care personnel (n = 4257, response rate = 17.7%), using bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Our analytical sample included providers (medical doctors, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants) and nurses (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses). The outcomes included two items measuring high burnout. Primary predictors included importance ratings of 10 population health management tools (eg. VA risk prediction algorithm, recent hospitalizations and emergency department visits, etc.).High ratings of 9 tools were associated with lower odds of high burnout, independent of covariates including VA tenure, team role, gender, ethnicity, staffing, and training. For example, clinicians who rated the risk prediction algorithm as important were less likely to report high burnout levels than those who did not use or did not know about the tool (OR 0.73; CI 0.61-0.87), and they were less likely to report frequent burnout (once per week or more) (OR 0.71; CI 0.60-0.84).Burned-out clinicians may not consider the EHR-based tools important and may not be using them to perform care management. Tools that create additional technological burden may need adaptation to become more accessible, more intuitive, and less burdensome to use. Finding ways to improve the use of tools that streamline the work of population health management and/or result in less workload due to patients with poorly managed chronic conditions may alleviate burnout. More research is needed to understand the causal directional of the association between burnout and ratings of population health management tools.

    View details for DOI 10.1186/s12875-024-02410-8

    View details for PubMedID 38750457

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC11094957

  • Digital Health Interventions for Cardiac Rehabilitation: Systematic Literature Review. Journal of medical Internet research Wongvibulsin, S., Habeos, E. E., Huynh, P. P., Xun, H., Shan, R., Porosnicu Rodriguez, K. A., Wang, J., Gandapur, Y. K., Osuji, N., Shah, L. M., Spaulding, E. M., Hung, G., Knowles, K., Yang, W. E., Marvel, F. A., Levin, E., Maron, D. J., Gordon, N. F., Martin, S. S. 2021; 23 (2): e18773


    BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite strong evidence supporting the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), over 80% of eligible patients do not participate in CR. Digital health technologies (ie, the delivery of care using the internet, wearable devices, and mobile apps) have the potential to address the challenges associated with traditional facility-based CR programs, but little is known about the comprehensiveness of these interventions to serve as digital approaches to CR. Overall, there is a lack of a systematic evaluation of the current literature on digital interventions for CR.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic literature review is to provide an in-depth analysis of the potential of digital health technologies to address the challenges associated with traditional CR. Through this review, we aim to summarize the current literature on digital interventions for CR, identify the key components of CR that have been successfully addressed through digital interventions, and describe the gaps in research that need to be addressed for sustainable and scalable digital CR interventions.METHODS: Our strategy for identifying the primary literature pertaining to CR with digital solutions (defined as technology employed to deliver remote care beyond the use of the telephone) included a consultation with an expert in the field of digital CR and searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for original studies published from January 1990 to October 2018.RESULTS: Our search returned 31 eligible studies, of which 22 were randomized controlled trials. The reviewed CR interventions primarily targeted physical activity counseling (31/31, 100%), baseline assessment (30/31, 97%), and exercise training (27/31, 87%). The most commonly used modalities were smartphones or mobile devices (20/31, 65%), web-based portals (18/31, 58%), and email-SMS (11/31, 35%). Approximately one-third of the studies addressed the CR core components of nutrition counseling, psychological management, and weight management. In contrast, less than a third of the studies addressed other CR core components, including the management of lipids, diabetes, smoking cessation, and blood pressure.CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies have the potential to increase access and participation in CR by mitigating the challenges associated with traditional, facility-based CR. However, previously evaluated interventions primarily focused on physical activity counseling and exercise training. Thus, further research is required with more comprehensive CR interventions and long-term follow-up to understand the clinical impact of digital interventions.

    View details for DOI 10.2196/18773

    View details for PubMedID 33555259